Author
Listed:
- Ganeev Singh
(Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA)
- Laura Corlin
(Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University School of Engineering, Medford, MA, USA)
- Paul R. Beninger
(Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- Peter J. Neumann
(Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)
- Marcia M. Boumil
(Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- Shreya Mehta
(Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- Deeb N. Salem
(Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)
Abstract
Background Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions. Objective To determine participants’ preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency. Design Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population (“equal access†) or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths (“efficient†). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB). Setting Tufts Medicine Healthcare System. Participants Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration. Measurements Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample t tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice. Results A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the “equal access†(48%) and “efficient†option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33–2.25). Limitations Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results. Conclusion Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality. Highlights Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making. In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the “equal access†(48%) and “efficient†option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice Since clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.
Suggested Citation
Ganeev Singh & Laura Corlin & Paul R. Beninger & Peter J. Neumann & Marcia M. Boumil & Shreya Mehta & Deeb N. Salem, 2024.
"Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 18-27, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:18-27
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231206750
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:18-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.